WSJ resident nabob and Über hack Barton Swaim has run off the rational rails once more with his latest Review piece (The Case for an American Revolution in Morals, Aug. 20-21, p. C5). He begins predictably enough with this offal:
"It’s hard to contemplate American public life in the 21st century and not arrive at the unhappy conclusion that we are led by idiots. The political class has lately produced an impressive string of debacles: the Afghanistan pullout, urban crime waves, easily foreseen inflation, mayhem at the southern border, a self-generated energy crisis, a pandemic response that wrought little good and vast ruin."
All of which is errant codswallop and especially given he takes no note of the imp behind most of this latter day wreckage, namely Donald Trump. But having skewered Swaim's 'handiwork' before it's no surprise how he can so easily ignore the vast blight of the Trump years: the unending chaos, the vile tweets, the alienation of allies, the glorification of enemies, the breaking of laws and norms, and the comprehensive loss of America’s moral leadership and direction. If Swaim were genuinely serious about discussing a "revolution in morals" he'd start with how the Trump years have uniformly wrecked, distorted any perception of morals - or indeed, its sub genre ethics.
But since he's a basic dodger in terms of facing facts, Swaim chooses to use as a foil Harvard historian James Hankins (and his book, 'Virtue Politics: Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy' ) to promote his authoritarian, Neoliberal brand of populist politics. To be sure, Prof. Hankins may not even be aware he is being so used, so elated to have his work publicized again - even by a Trumper like Swaim. Typical of the detritus we get is this Swaim nugget:
"Constitutional form was far less important than the character of rulers,” Mr.Hankins writes. By the early 14th century European political thought had degenerated into narrowly legalistic arguments about why this or that ruler has a superior claim to office. To the humanists, that preoccupation was being beneath the notice of serious thought. Their goal “was to uproot tyranny from the soul of the ruler, whether the ruler was one, few, or many.”
Which inexorably leads to Swaim's own position, as we expected:
"My own attachment to classical liberalism makes me skeptical of any philosophy purporting to empower “good” and “wise” leaders without first attending to the limits on their authority. But I have to admit: At the moment American constitutional democracy doesn’t seem very good at limiting the damage done by bad and foolish officials. In fact we seem overrun with rulers who possess lots of Machiavellian guile but no Machiavellian competence. Maybe we have something to learn from virtue politics?"
Or maybe not. Parse those words carefully. Swaim is actually holding our constitutional democracy to a standard it was never designed to meet. How could it given the Founders. for example, never anticipated a dirtbag like Trump ascending to the presidency. In Federalist #68, for example, Alexander Hamilton -
No slouch in terms of moral standards - writes regarding the Electoral College process of using state electors:
"The process of election (by state electors) affords a moral certainty that the office of President shall never fall to the lot of any man who is not to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications...It will not be too strong to say that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
Surely not even Swaim - no matter how many 'neural acres' Trump owns in his febrile brain, would contest that Hamilton, Madison or any of the Founders would not be appalled by the likes of candidate Trump in 2016. A guy caught on an Access Hollywood tape proudly bragging of assaulting women's genitals ("Ya grab 'em by the pussy!') which would confirm clearly he lacked the moral character to assume the highest office. Or would Swaim argue, like WSJ op-ed Troll mate Holman Jenkins Jr. often has, the Founders would treat it like a joke? The even more appalling fact that vaporizes any such foolish response is that over the years no less than 18 women have accused the maggot of sexual misconduct - with one still awaiting a DNA test to prove it.
My point is that if (as Swaim claims) American constitutional democracy "isn't very good at limiting the damage done by bad or foolish officials" then what is the alternative? Moreover, if he is that concerned over such damage why does he continue to defend the likes of a congenital dirtbag like Donald Trump?
The only one possible is outright authoritarianism which Swaim has made clear he is all for in previous WSJ op-ed columns. (As well as defending Trump's use of it.) For example, the way this latent fascist attacked the expert class e.g.
WSJ's Barton Swaim Attacks The "Expert Class"
In a post in which I pointed out:
"His inability to discern that the invasion and ravaging of the Capitol was not against "elite contempt" but against the nation's electoral system, the Constitution and democracy itself."
But this is par for the course in the op-ed landscape of Barton Swaim's antics, so why express any surprise? Of course Swaim - as an authoritarian at heart - would see the January 6th insurrection as just a bunch of raging proles rising up against the "elites" and their utter contempt. He'd never see it as an attack on democracy because he has no respect for constitutional democracy anyway.
Further down in the piece, Swaim expounds on the humanities:
"These days that term 'the humanities' signifies a hodgepodge of
squishy disciplines, from literary theory to cultural studies. For the original
humanists, “it meant you understood the true potential of human nature to be
good, to achieve nobility—true nobility, not inherited nobility.” They wanted
students at their elite institutions to be immersed in works that turned the
mind to nobility of character. “The ‘Aeneid’ of Virgil, which was full of
examples of noble behavior. Also the ‘Lives’ of Plutarch. They wanted men and
women—and humanism addressed both men and women, unlike [medieval]
scholasticism—to know what it’s like to be noble. . . .
But how did such a critical area like the humanities become "squishy"? Swaim only addresses this tangentially via Hankins' "profoundly Augustinian outlook" which is itself 'squishy' unless terms are clearly defined. The message I got is that our constitutional democracy is trusted by neither Swaim nor Hankins. Swaim writes: "Although Hankins considers himself a classical liberal—'I think less government is better than more.' He doesn’t see Anglo-American constitutionalism as the final word on political thought."
Okay then, what is the final word? How about an "illiberal democracy" on the scale of Viktor Orban's Hungary - which is actually defended in another WSJ op-ed in the same review section ( Viktor Orban: An Improbable Hero for the American Right', p. C1). After reading Swaim's piece, it's difficult to believe he's not on the same wavelength as Matthew Continetti, the author of the Orban piece. Therein we read fulsome claptrap such as the following:
"Mr. Orban exemplifies the combative spirit and scornful attitude of a Right that sees itself as culturally belittled, isolated, dispossessed and under siege from forces undermining Western civilization from within."
Yeppers. Orban's the 'wonder man' for the American Right, of which Swaim is surely a proud populist member. The final Swaim rant is based on an erroneous definition of scientism which Hankins also shares. I.e.
"Hankins calls 'scientism' the belief that science will
solve all your problems, that you can abandon judgment, that you can abandon
what the Greeks called phronesis, practical wisdom, which comes
through the study of the past and from reading the great works of the past,
like Aristotle’s ‘Politics,’ which is about the art of making wise decisions.”
In fact, the scientism to which Hankins refers - and Swaim later excoriates - is really "common scientism" based on subjective opinions not on any scientific or other facts. (This according to philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat in his book 'In Search of Reality'). The formal definition which is the appropriate one is (d'Espagnat, p. 56):
Scientism. This incorporates all aspects of the reductionist-classical Newtonian approach with which many skeptics
are fascinated, and which justifies their rejection of anything resembling
holism or emergence.
This is an important difference to appreciate! Nor is it clear that the "experts" or "elites" castigated by Swaim and Hankins fall into the "scientism" defender category at all. For example, Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute is a devout Christian who certainly believes in emergence, and hence is not a devotee of scientism. He also believes in our constitutional democracy despite being an expert in his field. As for the "moral revolution" coming, we are informed by Swaim (and Hankins):
"It’s building. The scientism. The abdication of moral judgment. The idea that our leaders are just following the science, following the algorithms, following the experts, and we’re not even going to look into the faces of people who are losing their jobs because we shut the economy down? We’re going to let our grandparents die in isolation and talk to them on iPhones as they’re dying? It’s obscene."
But we already lost over 1.1. million to Covid because too many were slapdash careless: about the lockdowns, about social distancing, masking and especially getting the vaccines. . So to hear Swaim tell it, we ought to have accepted another million dead for the economy to have been better, for fewer oldsters having to talk with kin on iPhones, and fewer people losing their jobs (mind you during the Trump- Covid years and immediate aftermath, but these have since all been recovered thanks to Biden)
Most telling at the end is that Hankins is "not undone by Trump." How come? Well, because he "takes the long view". Jeez, how convenient! We are then informed by the good prof:
“I think of it as an historian. Many people don’t think deeply about what it would be like to live in a different time. They have no sense of comparison. Thinking long about history, you get a much broader view of human life. History is a road to sanity."
Thanks a heap, prof. I am sure this is minimal consolation to all the remaining Jews who lost family in Hitler's gas chambers, such as at Mauthausen, e.g.
Who may well perceive ominous parallels between Hitler and Trump and especially view with dread the latter's potential re-election, recalling Hitler's own uneven rise to power. So pardon them for not having as expansive a perspective on human life - or "taking the long view" - as you and Swaim do.
Amidst all the twisting and spinning concerning definitions of humanism and the humanities, Swaim might do well in future to ponder Yale Prof. Anthony T. Kronman's take ('Education's End - Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up On The Meaning Of Life'), p. 42,
"Students
and teachers pursue the perennial puzzle of human existence through the
disciplined study of an interrelated series of works in which how a
person ought to spend his or her life provides a connecting theme and
organizing focus of inquiry.."
See Also:
WSJ's Barton Swaim Gets It Wrong Again On The Virus, Shutdowns, Masks & "The Elites"
And:
And:
by Henry Giroux | August 26, 2022 - 6:28am | permalink
The Orbánization of Fascist Politics, illiberal democracy, and White Replacement theory
Excerpt
The malicious passions of fascism are with us once again, evident in the emergence of diverse regimes of predatory repression and exclusion that increasingly legitimate their hatred of democracy through appeals to a notion of illiberal democracy—a project that calls for the elimination of freedom, dissent, and justice as essential elements of political life, if not democracy itself. Of particular importance is the growing attraction of nationalist Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary,.
To conservatives in the United States. Orbán’s popularity is due to his disdain of democracy and his use of political power to implement a range of reactionary policies, especially his belief that “there is a liberal plot to dilute the white populations of the US and European countries through immigration.”[1]
Expressing a notion of white replacement embraced by much of the Republican Party leadership, he has argued that “the western world was ‘committing suicide’ though immigration,” and has declared: “I see the great European population exchange as a suicidal attempt to replace the lack of European, Christian children with adults from other civilizations — migrants.”[2]
Orbán’s notion of the nation is critical of the principles of freedom and equality because they lead “inevitably to greater immigration and equality between races” and are at odds with a notion of the nation that defines itself assertively through the logic of white supremacy and racial purity.[3] Orbán made this point clear in a July 22, 2022 speech.
As Shaun Walker and Flora Garamvolgyi reported in The Guardian, Orbán stated: “We [Hungarians] are not a mixed race … and we do not want to become a mixed race,” said Orbán on Saturday. He added that countries where European and non-Europeans mingle were ‘no longer nations.’”[4] Zsuzsa Hegendus, a long time Orbán advisor, resigned in response to Orbán’s mixed race comments stating that his remarks were comparable to “a pure Nazi text worthy of Goebbels.”
No comments:
Post a Comment